Representation by John Steadman Dodd (John Steadman Dodd )
- Date submitted
- 1 September 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is approximately 6.84 hectares of agricultural land and an 60ft x 60ft new build agricultural building, yard and pens which is to be demolished as part of the road design. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation Following the construction period, the land is currently designated as ‘EFD’ which is a bird mitigation area – Golden Plover. Under the document “2.7 Environmental Management Plan Annex B1 Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan”, the management prescriptions state that between the months of January to July, there will be no grazing by livestock. The main farming business is a sheep enterprise which relies upon all year-round grazing. The compound site is approximately 17 acres which equates to 7% of their total land and therefore this could continue to cause a significant loss of business income moving forward. The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There is an attenuation / balancing ponds shown on the project plans located on my client’s land. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks and outfall drainage as no consultation has been undertaken. 5. Accommodation Works and Other Matters The proposed compound affects approximately 17 acres of land which includes an agricultural building to be demolished. Due to the nature of the business and an all-year-round requirement for housing sheep, lambing and crop storage, the building cannot be dismantled and relocated. There are no other agricultural buildings on this site and therefore National Highways must erect a new agricultural building to replace the existing one before any construction commences. A proposed design and layout for the alternative building location has been submitted to National Highways to mitigate any business losses, this is currently awaiting a response. During construction, the farming business requires an extended area to the North and East of the compound site for storage of farm machinery, crop, bales, dog pens and portacabins for chemicals and spray. The access to the new building is required to tie into the proposed new access which National Highways have designed on to the compound site. An access track is also required to the surrounding field parcels. The security of the compound is a major concern during the construction period. Once the agricultural building is relocated, the security could be compromised due to the construction compound being immediately adjacent and the theft issues which may arise as a result. 24 hour security, cctv and security lights will be required not only on the compound but at the agricultural buildings.